only if you have a broad and encompassing and ignorant understanding of 'they'. It's rather like destroying some third party's car because you don't like Rush Limbaugh.

I suppose if I'm the liberal you say I am, I should be impressed with our convergent 'core values'

They = Muslim Jihadists, Taliban, Al-Queda, so on.

Its is unknown whether or not the proprietor of this mosque has any terrorist affiliation.

He refuses to identify Al-Qaeda, Hamas and The Taliban as terrorists groups and refuses to quote the source of the funding for his mosque.

That is hugely suspicious. So he could very well have terrorist affiliations.

The point you made about the owner refusing to identify those groups as terrorists was taken out of context. Feisal Abdul Rauf had stated that he isn't a political figure and doesn't want to be cited as taking one side or the other. He claims to be trying to promote peace between different religious groups so he didn't want to be viewed as an advocate or denouncer of specific groups. He also says that he hasn't raised the money to build it yet and directly confirmed that he would not be accepting money from terrorist groups and would be transparent about where the money comes from.http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabLhttp://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

So I do not believe that there is any information which suggests that the owner of the land is affiliated with terrorists. If you can find actual information (with credible sources) that they are affiliated, then you would have a case.

They can build it and they will use Muslim workers. The union will slow down the process a bit city inspector will put a crimp in there building I am fairly sure the police force will be giving out tickets from parking and what ever else they can fine that's against the law. By the way it will be constructed with stone and or concrete so the silly I deal of burning it probably will not work it will take at least ten years to complete it.

They can build it and they will use Muslim workers. The union will slow down the process a bit city inspector will put a crimp in there building I am fairly sure the police force will be giving out tickets from parking and what ever else they can fine that's against the law. By the way it will be constructed with stone and or concrete so the silly I deal of burning it probably will not work it will take at least ten years to complete it.

Of course you can't burn down stone concrete and mortar, you'd have to exploded it with explosives.

The point you made about the owner refusing to identify those groups as terrorists was taken out of context. Feisal Abdul Rauf had stated that he isn't a political figure and doesn't want to be cited as taking one side or the other. He claims to be trying to promote peace between different religious groups so he didn't want to be viewed as an advocate or denouncer of specific groups. He also says that he hasn't raised the money to build it yet and directly confirmed that he would not be accepting money from terrorist groups and would be transparent about where the money comes from.http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabLhttp://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

So I do not believe that there is any information which suggests that the owner of the land is affiliated with terrorists. If you can find actual information (with credible sources) that they are affiliated, then you would have a case.

Saying that he isn't a political figure and doesn't want to take sides isn't sufficient to debunk any suspicions. Its a get-out-of-jail-free card that anyone with a 8 bit brain could figure out.

Doesn't debunk any suspicions, if anything it only succeeds to make people more suspicious of him.

And saying hes raising the money could easily be a lie, He could simply have the funding wired to him in small increments over a period of time. That's just common sense.

They can build it and they will use Muslim workers. The union will slow down the process a bit city inspector will put a crimp in there building I am fairly sure the police force will be giving out tickets from parking and what ever else they can fine that's against the law. By the way it will be constructed with stone and or concrete so the silly I deal of burning it probably will not work it will take at least ten years to complete it.

Of course you can't burn down stone concrete and mortar, you'd have to exploded it with explosives.

The point you made about the owner refusing to identify those groups as terrorists was taken out of context. Feisal Abdul Rauf had stated that he isn't a political figure and doesn't want to be cited as taking one side or the other. He claims to be trying to promote peace between different religious groups so he didn't want to be viewed as an advocate or denouncer of specific groups. He also says that he hasn't raised the money to build it yet and directly confirmed that he would not be accepting money from terrorist groups and would be transparent about where the money comes from.http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabLhttp://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

So I do not believe that there is any information which suggests that the owner of the land is affiliated with terrorists. If you can find actual information (with credible sources) that they are affiliated, then you would have a case.

Saying that he isn't a political figure and doesn't want to take sides isn't sufficient to debunk any suspicions. Its a get-out-of-jail-free card that anyone with a 8 bit brain could figure out.

Doesn't debunk any suspicions, if anything it only succeeds to make people more suspicious of him.

And saying hes raising the money could easily be a lie, He could simply have the funding wired to him in small increments over a period of time. That's just common sense.

Then what's not debunking the suspicion of your intention for causing property damage? Which the act itself BTW is against the law.

Well it is against the law but so was blowing up the trade towers, I do not what to encourage act's of individual violence against other until a formal declaration of war. Building that eye sore is just another way Islam is shoving it trash in our eyes. Your a Canadian so why should you even care, what happens here.

tarakellywrote:Your a Canadian so why should you even care, what happens here.

Because my own personal conviction implores myself as an individual to do so.

Good luck with that hopeless employ that doesn't even pay anything.

And good luck with your Calvinism/capitalist redemption:

Calvinists also believe that "God's divine providence [has] selected, elected, and predestined certain people to restore humanity and reconcile it with its Creator." These "Elect" were originally thought to be the only people going to Heaven. To the Calvinists, material success and wealth was a sign that you were one of the Elect, and thus were favored by God. Who better to shepherd a society populated by God's wayward children? The poor, the weak, the infirm? God was punishing them for their sins. This theology was spreading at a time when the rise of industrial capitalism tore the fabric of European society, shifting the nature of work and the patterns of family life of large numbers of people. There were large numbers of angry, alienated people who the new elites needed to keep in line to avoid labor unrest and to protect production and profits.

Max Weber, an early sociologist who saw culture as a powerful force that shaped both individuals and society, argued that Calvinism grew in a symbiotic relationship with the rise of industrial capitalism. As Sara Diamond explains:

Calvinism arose in Europe centuries ago in part as a reaction to Roman Catholicism's heavy emphasis on priestly authority and on salvation through acts of penance. One of the classic works of sociology, Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, links the rise of Calvinism to the needs of budding capitalists to judge their own economic success as a sign of their preordained salvation. The rising popularity of Calvinism coincided with the consolidation of the capitalist economic system. Calvinists justified their accumulation of wealth, even at the expense of others, on the grounds that they were somehow destined to prosper. It is no surprise that such notions still find resonance within the Christian Right which champions capitalism and all its attendant inequalities.(citation)

tarakellywrote:Your a Canadian so why should you even care, what happens here.

Because my own personal conviction implores myself as an individual to do so.

Good luck with that hopeless employ that doesn't even pay anything.

And good luck with your Calvinism/capitalist redemption:

Calvinists also believe that "God's divine providence [has] selected, elected, and predestined certain people to restore humanity and reconcile it with its Creator." These "Elect" were originally thought to be the only people going to Heaven. To the Calvinists, material success and wealth was a sign that you were one of the Elect, and thus were favored by God. Who better to shepherd a society populated by God's wayward children? The poor, the weak, the infirm? God was punishing them for their sins. This theology was spreading at a time when the rise of industrial capitalism tore the fabric of European society, shifting the nature of work and the patterns of family life of large numbers of people. There were large numbers of angry, alienated people who the new elites needed to keep in line to avoid labor unrest and to protect production and profits.

Max Weber, an early sociologist who saw culture as a powerful force that shaped both individuals and society, argued that Calvinism grew in a symbiotic relationship with the rise of industrial capitalism. As Sara Diamond explains:

Calvinism arose in Europe centuries ago in part as a reaction to Roman Catholicism's heavy emphasis on priestly authority and on salvation through acts of penance. One of the classic works of sociology, Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, links the rise of Calvinism to the needs of budding capitalists to judge their own economic success as a sign of their preordained salvation. The rising popularity of Calvinism coincided with the consolidation of the capitalist economic system. Calvinists justified their accumulation of wealth, even at the expense of others, on the grounds that they were somehow destined to prosper. It is no surprise that such notions still find resonance within the Christian Right which champions capitalism and all its attendant inequalities.(citation)

Well I can't be a Calvinist as I am an Atheist. I don't believe in any God, Gods, Deities, Demons, Ghosts, Spirits, Souls, and what not. Not to mention I don't think of myself as a god or holy person of supreme status.

But I suppose I am a Capitalist because I believe in private property rights and that being pro-business makes a healthy economy. And Socialist's don't believe in the right to personal ownership of objects / things / stuffs / businesses / monies.

tarakellywrote:Your a Canadian so why should you even care, what happens here.

Because my own personal conviction implores myself as an individual to do so.

Good luck with that hopeless employ that doesn't even pay anything.

And good luck with your Calvinism/capitalist redemption:

Calvinists also believe that "God's divine providence [has] selected, elected, and predestined certain people to restore humanity and reconcile it with its Creator." These "Elect" were originally thought to be the only people going to Heaven. To the Calvinists, material success and wealth was a sign that you were one of the Elect, and thus were favored by God. Who better to shepherd a society populated by God's wayward children? The poor, the weak, the infirm? God was punishing them for their sins. This theology was spreading at a time when the rise of industrial capitalism tore the fabric of European society, shifting the nature of work and the patterns of family life of large numbers of people. There were large numbers of angry, alienated people who the new elites needed to keep in line to avoid labor unrest and to protect production and profits.

Max Weber, an early sociologist who saw culture as a powerful force that shaped both individuals and society, argued that Calvinism grew in a symbiotic relationship with the rise of industrial capitalism. As Sara Diamond explains:

Calvinism arose in Europe centuries ago in part as a reaction to Roman Catholicism's heavy emphasis on priestly authority and on salvation through acts of penance. One of the classic works of sociology, Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, links the rise of Calvinism to the needs of budding capitalists to judge their own economic success as a sign of their preordained salvation. The rising popularity of Calvinism coincided with the consolidation of the capitalist economic system. Calvinists justified their accumulation of wealth, even at the expense of others, on the grounds that they were somehow destined to prosper. It is no surprise that such notions still find resonance within the Christian Right which champions capitalism and all its attendant inequalities.(citation)

Well I can't be a Calvinist as I am an Atheist. I don't believe in any God, Gods, Deities, Demons, Ghosts, Spirits, Souls, and what not. Not to mention I don't think of myself as a god or holy person of supreme status.

But I suppose I am a Capitalist because I believe in private property rights and that being pro-business makes a healthy economy. And Socialist's don't believe in the right to personal ownership of objects / things / stuffs / businesses / monies.

That's not who you are according to your own "suspicious" claims. While your own source hadn't talked about how socialists disrespect private property laws:

Economic liberals, pro-capitalist Libertarians and some classical liberals view private property of the means of production and the market exchange as natural and/or moral phenomena, which are central to their conceptions of freedom and liberty and thus perceive public ownership of the means of production, cooperatives and economic planning as infringements upon liberty.

Critics from the neoclassical school of economics criticize socialist theories that promote state-ownership and/or centralization of capital on the grounds that there is a lack of incentive in state institutions to act on information as efficiently as managers in capitalist firms do because they lack a hard budget constraint (profit and loss mechanism), resulting in reduced overall economic welfare for society. Critics from the Austrian school of economics argue that socialist systems based on economic planning are unfeasible because they lack the information to perform economic calculation in the first place due to a lack of price signals and a free price system, which they believe are required for rational economic calculation. Critics of the socialist political movement often criticize the internal conflicts of the socialist movement as creating a sort of "responsibility void."(citation)

Not only that, its ground based on incentives was fundamentally wrong, inefficient, and overall a waste of resources on works that requires creativity and innovation:

Social Reinforcement

One of the most important rewards for a job well done is acknowledgement from one’s peers, supervisors, family, and friends. This social reinforcement comes from others knowing about the good performance.
Acknowledgement Increases Social Utility, Increasing Value

Non-cash incentives may be more effective than cash awards in this regard, because the participant doesn’t need to advertise earning them. For example, a friend or a colleague might ask, “So Bill, how are those golf clubs you earned from the firm?” This is a socially acceptable question. On the other hand, it is less socially acceptable to say, “So Bill, how’s the $1,000 you earned from the firm?”

Non-Cash Incentives More Socially Acceptable To Acknowledge

Most people are uncomfortable bragging about cash, but enjoy talking about their new golf clubs or trip. With tangible non-cash incentives being visible and socially acceptable to praise, question, or bring up, there is no need to go out of one’s way to call attention to them. By providing a better means to indirectly call attention to the award and what was accomplished to earn it, the value of earning a non-cash incentive is enhanced relative to the cash value of the incentive.

Non-Cash Incentives Have Trophy Value

Non-cash incentives like a big screen television will serve as a reminder to the participant about his or her performance (and the firm) every time it is watched. Vacation travel provides memories, pictures, etc. Cash awards can do this somewhat, but only when a certificate, plaque, etc., is provided as a physical marker. In the case of a non-cash incentive, the award itself is the physical marker.

The utility of earning a non-cash incentive is enhanced by the visibility of the award and the absence of social norms against discussing them.

Cash Awards Are Less Likely To Be Tied To The Company That Provided Them

When a cash award is provided, it becomes the participant’s — anything purchased with it is something the participant chose to purchase rather than something the firm awarded to the participant. Family, friends, and colleagues will also be more likely to view what the participant purchased as something the participant bought rather than something that was awarded for performance. This makes the link between the company and the award weaker, diminishing the likelihood that good performance (or the company that awarded it) will be discussed. This is less likely to occur with tangible non-cash awards.

In Conclusion...

Non-Cash Incentives Offer Social Reinforcement, Meaning They...

* Increase the value of non-cash incentives through trophy value
* Acknowledge the link between the award and the company(citation)

But that's not your worldview now, is it? When you're so obsessed over the monetary resource of the building itself, you wanna blow it up just to see how much of a dent you can place on the rest of the society as a whole.

The point you made about the owner refusing to identify those groups as terrorists was taken out of context. Feisal Abdul Rauf had stated that he isn't a political figure and doesn't want to be cited as taking one side or the other. He claims to be trying to promote peace between different religious groups so he didn't want to be viewed as an advocate or denouncer of specific groups. He also says that he hasn't raised the money to build it yet and directly confirmed that he would not be accepting money from terrorist groups and would be transparent about where the money comes from.http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabLhttp://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

So I do not believe that there is any information which suggests that the owner of the land is affiliated with terrorists. If you can find actual information (with credible sources) that they are affiliated, then you would have a case.

Saying that he isn't a political figure and doesn't want to take sides isn't sufficient to debunk any suspicions. Its a get-out-of-jail-free card that anyone with a 8 bit brain could figure out.

Doesn't debunk any suspicions, if anything it only succeeds to make people more suspicious of him.

And saying hes raising the money could easily be a lie, He could simply have the funding wired to him in small increments over a period of time. That's just common sense.

In the interview I linked to, which took place on Sept. 8th 2010, the following was brought up to clear the air a bit since people kept using the old quotes against him, out of context.

O'BRIEN: There have been a lot of questions, and I think a fair amount of controversy and criticism about questions that people have had about your take on Hamas. You were asked in an interview in the radio; the interviewer said, is the State Department correct in designating Hamas as a terror group? And you dodged the question. You went on a long time. But there was really sort of no answer to it.

So -- and I guess people sense that whatever that answer is, if you -- if you don't condemn Hamas, then in a way maybe you're supporting Hamas as a terror organization. So I guess I'd ask that question again. Do you -- you know, is the State Department right in saying that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

RAUF: I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism. And Hamas has committed acts of terrorism.

Now anything anyone says can be a lie but you need at an adequate amount of proof before you can rightfully accuse people of lying or withholding the truth. I'm not sure what more you want from the guy, he even promises to be transparent and list where all of the money is coming from so that everyone can see that there are no links to terrorist groups.

I think I said this before but the negative connotations surrounding this are all from news networks that put a spin on the stories and people that are unable to objectively access the situation so they come up with these wild ideas. I would suggest everyone read the CNN interview I linked to since most of the issues are covered there, straight from the horses mouth.

Well it is against the law but so was blowing up the trade towers, I do not what to encourage act's of individual violence against other until a formal declaration of war. Building that eye sore is just another way Islam is shoving it trash in our eyes. Your a Canadian so why should you even care, what happens here.

I don't. Well ... Let's not say I don't care. because I do, I have american friends and what America does impacts on more than just Americans.
That said. Yes, It's not really my business what you do in your country. I'm not a resident or taxpayer in New York, I don't vote, I don't have a say in your legal processes I'm not entitled to the same benefits you would be as a citizen there.

But I can observe and opine.

I'm just curious to see if your constitution is meaningful or just ink on a page.

Yes I hold on to the constitution and think it a very important document. Now is Islams just a religion that's a sold no. It far more then that it also a theocracy that hold itself higher than the Constitution. Such a conflict needs to be judge on to me it simple the laws of the government no matter how disgusting they are supersede any religious law.That all I am stating religious freedom stop when in conflict with the law.We do not allow human sacrifices to go on if a religion did use it. and wickens are not allowed to slaughter animal for just a rituals purpose. To me some one cne pray to a sack dog pop and i realy do not care..